In many business environments, multiple entities are involved in coordinating production, distribution, and delivery of a product to an end consumer. For example, in the construction industry, a builder may utilize third party vendors to build a structure (e.g., a new home) that may be tailored to the needs or desires of a purchaser (e.g., a home buyer). The third party vendors may include suppliers who provide materials to be used to build the structure, and contractors that build the structure using the materials provided by the supplier.
Prior to construction of the structure, the builder may contact each of the suppliers and contractors to request bids. The requests may detail the materials and/or services (e.g., labor and/or installation) to be provided during the construction of the structure, and the requests may be generated based on a detailed specification of the structure (e.g., a blueprint of the structure created by an architect). After the builder receives the bids from the suppliers and/or the contractors, the builder selects particular suppliers and particular contractors that the builder will use to build the structure.
For example, the builder may receive bids for lumber from multiple lumber suppliers, and may receive bids for services (e.g., framing the structure using the lumber) from multiple contractors. The builder selects one or more of the multiple lumber suppliers to provide the lumber to build the structure, and selects one or more of the multiple contractors to build the structure using the supplied lumber. In some instances, the builder may receive bids for both the materials and the services from the multiple contractors. In such instances, the multiple contractors may have requested and received bids for the materials from the multiple suppliers, and each of the multiple contractors may generate bids for the builder based on the bids the contractors received from the suppliers.
In some instances the bidding process may be very complex. For example, in a residential subdivision development, the builder may desire to construct many different types of homes, each having different sizes, different specifications, different materials requirements, and/or different services (e.g., labor) requirements. Further, a single home may be constructed in one of many different ways (e.g., different elevations) such that when two homes of the same type are built side-by-side within the subdivision, the two homes look different from the street. Thus, the suppliers and/or the contractors may each provide the builder with complex bids detailing the various different costs to the builder for each type of home and each configuration of a particular type of home.
After receiving the bids, the builder may input the bids from the selected suppliers and contractors into a database, generating a large amount of data. Presently, systems to process this data are subject to error, data loss, and may introduce delays for all of the entities involved in the construction process. For example, the builder may request a bid for lumber from two different lumber suppliers. The request may identify different types and quantities of lumber for each of the different types of homes that may be built. There are currently no industry standard identifiers for lumber (and most other construction materials), so the request sent to the supplier typically identifies the lumber using builder specific identifiers. Similarly, the lumber suppliers may each identify the lumber using their own supplier specific lumber identifiers. Thus, when each of the lumber suppliers receives the request, the lumber suppliers must first translate the builder specific identifiers into the lumber supplier's own supplier specific lumber identifiers. Further, when the bids are received by the builder, the builder must then translate each of the lumber supplier's supplier specific identifier into the builder's builder specific identifiers.
Translation of the party specific identifiers is presently done manually by data entry on a computer or by hand using pen and paper. These methods are time consuming, which may introduce delays into the bidding process. Additionally, such methods of translating the party specific identifiers are prone to human errors, which may cause delivery of incorrect materials to the construction site, receipt of incorrect bids, and may introduce further delays and increase costs as the correct materials must still be delivered and the incorrect materials must be removed from the construction site.
After the bidding process is complete, the builder offers homes for sale in the subdivision, and a home buyer may contract with the builder for construction of a new home. Prior to beginning construction of the new home, the home builder may provide the home buyer with numerous options for configuring the home. The configuration options may be arranged into packages which are tiered according to a desired price point and may also be classified according to an area of the home (e.g., kitchen, bath, garage, etc.) to which a particular package corresponds. The bids received by the builder may include a cost to the builder for each of the different configuration options.
For example, the builder may offer multiple packages associated with a configuration of kitchen appliances in the home. The kitchen appliance packages may include a base package, a mid-level package, and a luxury package. The home builder may increase the sales price of the home based on the particular kitchen appliance package selected by the home buyer. To illustrate, the base package may include a first set of appliances (e.g., an oven, a range, a refrigerator, and a dishwasher). Typically, the sales price of the home does not change when the home buyer selects the base package.
The mid-level package may include a second set of appliances that differ from the appliances included in the base package in some way. For example, the mid-level package may include the same appliances (e.g., an oven, a range, a refrigerator, and a dishwasher) as the base package, but the appliances included in the mid-level package may be of a different color than the appliances included base package (e.g., white appliances in the base package, black appliances in the mid-level package). As another example, the mid-level package may include additional appliances (e.g., a built-in microwave) that are not included in the base package. The builder typically increases the sales price of the home by a first amount above the base package sales price when the home buyer selects the mid-level package.
The luxury package may include a third set of appliances that differ from the appliances included in both the base package and the mid-level package in some way. For example, the luxury package may include the same appliances (e.g., an oven, a range, a refrigerator, and a dishwasher), but the appliances included in the luxury package may be of a different color than the appliances offered in the base package and the mid-level package (e.g., white appliances in the base package, black appliances in the mid-level package, and stainless steel appliances in the luxury package). As another example, the luxury package may include additional appliances (e.g., a double oven) that are not included in the base package or the mid-level package. The builder typically increases the sales price of the home by a second amount above the mid-level package sales price when the home buyer selects the luxury package.
The appliances included in a particular package may be selected from numerous different appliances made by one or more manufacturers, and a manufacturer of the particular appliances provided within the particular package may not affect the builder's cost. For example, the refrigerator provided when a home buyer selects the base package may be selected from among three different white refrigerators manufactured by three different manufacturers. From the builder's point of view, the particular refrigerator provided by the supplier is not important, since all three of the refrigerators satisfy the base package criteria (e.g., a white appliance) and do not increase the builder's cost. Thus, the builder creates and sends a purchase order to the supplier, requesting that the supplier provide base package kitchen appliances on a particular date. When the criteria that distinguish the different packages are unique, such as when the appliances provided for each package are distinguished only by a color of the appliances, purchase orders with high levels of data abstraction (e.g., simply requesting base package appliances) may not cause problems.
However, this is rarely the case with most construction projects. Typically, the criteria that distinguish the different packages are not unique. For example, each of the kitchen appliance packages may include appliances available in multiple colors (e.g., white, black, red, stainless steel, etc.), from multiple manufacturers, and in multiple styles. In such a scenario, simply requesting that the supplier provide base package kitchen appliances to the home does not provide the supplier with enough information.
To illustrate, assume the home buyer selects the base package with red appliances made by a first manufacturer. From the builder's standpoint, this order simply indicates a purchase of base package kitchen appliances, and the builder sends the supplier a purchase order requesting delivery of base package kitchen appliances to the home. This puts the supplier in the position of having to determine which particular appliances (e.g., which color, which manufacturer, which style, etc.) the supplier should deliver to the home in order to fulfill the purchase order. Presently, the supplier makes such determinations manually by emailing or calling the builder with a request for additional information, wasting time and resources of both the builder and the supplier.
The problems caused by the high levels of data abstraction (e.g., simply requesting delivery of base package kitchen appliances) used by builders in purchase orders are compounded when change orders are considered. For example, assume that the home buyer originally selected base package kitchen appliances, and the builder sends the supplier a purchase order requesting delivery of base package kitchen appliances on a particular date. After the purchase order was sent to the supplier, the home buyer changes their selection from the base package kitchen appliances to the mid-level package kitchen appliances. In some instances, either by human error or another cause, this change may not be reported to the supplier, causing the supplier to deliver the wrong kitchen appliances to the home. In other instances, the builder may inform the supplier of the change using a change order. However, the change order simply requests delivery of mid-level package kitchen appliances instead of base package kitchen appliances. The supplier must again contact the builder for more information in order to determine the specific mid-level package kitchen appliances that the supplier is to deliver, wasting additional time and additional resources of both the builder and the supplier.
Change orders may also introduce delays and additional costs. For example, the builder may process the change order immediately after receiving the change request from the home buyer, but it may take a few days for the change order to reach the supplier (or the appropriate personnel at the supplier), introducing a delay. When the change order is sent to the supplier near the delivery date, the supplier may not process the change order in time, causing the supplier to deliver the base package kitchen appliances indicated in the purchase order, rather than the mid-level package kitchen appliances indicated in the change order. The supplier often incurs the additional cost of delivering the correct kitchen appliances (e.g., the appliances indicated in the change order), and the cost of transporting the incorrect kitchen appliances (e.g., the appliances indicated in the purchase order) back to the supplier's facility. If the appliances have already been installed (e.g., either by the supplier or by a contractor), the supplier also incurs the additional costs associated with the removal of the incorrect appliances, and for the installation of the correct appliances.
In addition to introducing errors, delays, and increased costs, presently available data management systems for the construction industry do not provide data analysis tools that enable industry wide market analysis and product tracking capabilities. For example, a manufacturer (e.g., an appliance manufacturer) may produce a product (e.g., a refrigerator) that is purchased by one or more wholesalers. The wholesalers may then sell the product to one or more retailers (e.g., the suppliers described above) that then sell the product to end consumers (e.g., the contractors and/or the builder described above). In this example, the supply chain flows from the manufacturer to the one or more wholesalers to the one or more retailers and then finally to the end consumers.
Typically, the parties involved in the supply chain are most concerned with the receipt of the product from a direct upstream source, and the flow of the product to one or more downstream destinations that the party provides the product to. For example, the manufacturer, as an origin of the product, receives payment for manufacturing the product at the time the product is sold and/or delivered to the one or more wholesalers. Thus, the manufacturer may be most interested in the flow of the product from the manufacturer to the one or more wholesalers, and may not be that concerned with the flow of the product from the one or more wholesalers to the one or more retailers. As a result, the manufacturer may track information associated with the product to the point of sale of the product to the one or more wholesalers, but may be unable to track distribution of the product through the supply chain from the one or more wholesalers to the end consumer. Some manufacturers rely on the end consumer to notify the manufacturer of the purchase of the product by including mail-in inserts included in the product's packaging. This method of information tracking is problematic in the home construction industry because the end consumer takes delivery of the product after the product has been removed from the packaging and may not receive the mail-in insert. The inability to track information associated with the end consumers of the product may be problematic for the manufacturer in certain situations, such as when a product recall occurs, because the manufacturer may have difficulty notifying the end consumer of the recall.
As another example, each of the one or more retailers may be interested in finding the best purchase price for the product, and in finding the largest number of end consumers to purchase the product. Accordingly, the one or more retailers may be interested in the receipt of the product from the one or more wholesalers (e.g., the direct upstream sources of the product in the supply chain), and may also be interested in the flow of the product to the end consumers. Thus, the various parties in the supply chain may have diverging areas of interest, and, as a result, may track different information relating to the product, making it difficult to track trends and forecast future demand for the product.
For example, the manufacturer may be located in a first location (e.g., a first city) and may sell the product to wholesalers serving various geographic regions (e.g., a state or a group of states). The wholesalers may then sell the product to retailers that have a large number of locations (e.g., numerous locations in a large number of cities across a large number of states). Data tracked by the manufacturer may only indicate that the product was sold in the geographic regions associated with the wholesalers, and data tracked by the wholesaler may identify the locations where the retailer received delivery of the product. The manufacturer is unable to determine, based on the data tracked by the manufacturer, that the product was purchased from the wholesalers in large quantities by retailers in particular locations (e.g., the south), and was purchased from the same wholesalers in smaller quantities by the same retailers in other locations (e.g., the north). Thus, the manufacturer may not be able to determine that marketing efforts for the product should be more focused in the particular locations where the larger quantities of the product are sold, or that additional marketing efforts should be directed to the locations where the smaller quantities of the product were sold (i.e., in order to try and increase sales in those locations).
Additionally, some of the parties in the supply chain may be interested in influencing the behavior of other parties in the supply chain. For example, the manufacturer may attempt to influence an end consumer to purchase the manufacturer's product by offering a rebate to the end consumer for purchasing the product or some other product related criterion (e.g., purchasing a threshold quantity of the product). As described above, each party in the supply chain may identify the product using a party specific identifier. For example, the manufacturer identifies the product using a manufacturer specific identifier, the one or more wholesalers identify the product using wholesaler specific identifiers, and the one or more retailers may identify the product using retailer specific identifiers. As can be appreciated, the number of party specific identifiers used to identify the product by the various parties may grow extremely large.
For example, the product may be provided to multiple wholesalers, each having their own unique wholesaler specific identifier for the product, who then provide the product to multiple retailers, each having their own unique retailer specific identifier for the product. When a single retailer purchases the product from multiple wholesalers, the single retailer may use multiple retailer specific identifiers (e.g., one retailer specific identifier for each wholesaler) to identify the product. Because each party in the supply chain has their own party specific identifier (and sometimes multiple party specific identifiers), the manufacturer may have difficulty verifying that a product purchased by the consumer qualifies for the rebate.
As an example, in the construction industry a manufacturer (e.g., a faucet manufacturer) may offer a builder a rebate for installing the manufacturer's products (e.g., faucets) in a home. In some instances the rebate may be offered on a per faucet basis, such that the builder qualifies for one rebate for each faucet installed in a home built by the builder (i.e., if the builder installs four faucets the builder qualifies for four rebates). In other instances the rebate may be offered on a per home basis, such that the builder qualifies for one rebate for each home that the builder installs the manufacturers faucets in, or a threshold quantity of faucets in (i.e., the builder qualifies for one rebate for every home the builder outfits with the manufacturers faucets).
However, as explained above, many builders use high levels of data abstraction when recording information pertaining to a home being built. For example, the builder may simply indicate base package faucets or some other generic description that indicates the faucets to be installed in the home. The high level of data abstraction used by many builders, in conjunction with the manufacturers inability track downstream distribution of products (e.g., from wholesalers to retailers to end consumers), may make it difficult for the manufacturer to verify that the builder qualifies for a particular rebate. This may cause manufacturers to pay additional rebates to a builder that the builder did not qualify for, or may cause the builder to receive less in rebates that the builder was entitled to.
As an example of how difficult tracking rebates in the construction industry presently is, some people in the construction industry estimate that manufacturers incur one and a half dollars (e.g., $1.50) in tracking costs for every dollar (e.g., $1.00) offered in rebates. If tracking of products could be reduced, manufacturers could offer builders larger rebates, which may reduce the cost to purchase a new home for a home buyer or increase the profits of the home builder. Additionally, the manufacturer could realize a larger profit on the sale of the product. Thus, there remains a need for systems that provide tools for data management, information sharing, product distribution coordination, and product tracking that overcome the limitations described above with respect to presently available systems.